Gov. Brian Sandoval said this week that he’s against the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use, but he’s open to seeing a proposal for dispensaries for medical marijuana.

“I don’t support the decriminalization of marijuana,” the Republican governor said Tuesday after a meeting at the Capitol. “The issue when medical marijuana was approved by the people was the accessibility. Under the current structure, you can only grow your own.”

He said he doesn’t necessarily support the status quo but wants to know more specifics about a proposed amendment to the bill before committing to anything.

“I guess I need to know what the system would be,” he said. “As long as it is prescribed by a physician and if accessibility is an issue, I’m waiting to see what the form is.”

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, has said he’s confident his bill will at least get to a full vote in the Senate.

Indeed, the bill passed unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee today, with four Democrats and three Republicans voting in favor of it.

The senator has argued it’s high time that Nevadans have a reasonable way to exercise their state constitutional right to use medical marijuana. He has said that dispensaries would allow for easy distribution to those who have a medical reason to use marijuana; under the current system, patients must basically grow their own and cannot legally obtain seeds.

To bolster his argument, Segerblom also has a new study from California Capitol Solutions that estimates that the bill would increase the number of medical marijuana cardholders in Nevada by tens of thousands because the law would make it less onerous to obtain medical marijuana.

The study also estimates that the dispensary system could bring in $33 million to the state.

Meanwhile, the governor’s comments cast doubt on the viability of the full legalization proposal from Assemblyman Joe Hogan, D-Las Vegas.

Both Hogan’s bill and Segerblom’s already face two high hurdles to reach the governor’s desk. They need a two-thirds majority vote to pass the Senate and Assembly.

Hogan’s bill may not make it out of the Assembly Judiciary committee.

“A lot of people have some hang-ups,” he said.

He said he’s trying to tell his colleagues that legalizing, regulating and taxing the recreational use of marijuana could bring the state between $400 million and $600 million at a time when legislators are looking for more money to pay for education programs.

He said that although Nevada voters have rejected legalizing marijuana in the past, that should not get in the way of today’s public opinion.

Join the Discussion:

Previous Discussion: 8 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

It is easy to understand Governor Sandoval's reservations about legalizing marijuana for open use. First is the USA "War on Drugs," which has FEDERAL laws criminalizing marijuana, its use, and distribution. The Federal laws would have to be considered, especially when states received funding from the Federal government with endless "strings" attached to that funding.

States are exercising "State's rights" by over-riding Federal laws or mandates. There are a handful of states that are charting new waters by their state's voters deciding the issue. Time will tell the outcome: will states succomb to masses of derilect pot smokers who simply contribute nothing but problems and crime, or will folks suffer no harm from marijuana useage?

Marijuana useage is akin to use of intoxicants as alcohol (without the hazard of calories and gaining weight). One shouldn't be intoxicated when at work or driving. It is commonsense. I disagree with Commenter Truthserum's statement, "marijuanna is a DANGEROUS gateway drug" as the real danger is truly mental illness in our society, that opens the door to harm. The USA has a nearly nonexistent mental health system due to underfunding and poorly written laws. People are just beginning to wake up to this reality with recent tragic events in the news.

Whether or not a career politician as Nevada's Governor condones legalized marijuana, this may soon become an issue that the state's voters decide, which is how it should be, not one man or one group of people, but the whole body of People that inhabit and live in the state. For Sandoval to approve of marijuana, affects his CAREER for higher political office, how that identifies HIM.

I'm glad to see we have at least one adult in Carson City, hats off to the Governor. It is stupid to legalize yet another intoxicant! We have massive problems with alcohol, prescription drugs and illegal drugs. Lets hope the medical marihuana law requires an honest diagnoses from the doctor not just office call charge and script.

Of course "pot" should be legal for adults as should all "recreational" drugs. Having said that, I think anyone using any "recreational" drug has to have his/her head examined. It can only lead to misery and addiction and will not solve any mental, emotional or conceptual problem of the user. The bigger picture, to me, is, are we truly free to make our own choices or is the nanny-state so ingrained in us that we willingly will give up our personal rights? When it comes to "recreational" drugs, tax them, regulate them, and educate users and would-be users about their inherent danger, but do not restrict the freedom of adults to choose to be stupid.

Is there a difference between legalization and decriminalization? It would be sad to see marijuana exploited like cigarettes and alcohol and turned into another sin-tax cash cow. Instead of developing a proper tax base, the legislature would likely pile tax after tax on the stuff.

Anyway, until we find a better way to determine exactly what "impairment" means, marijuana will remain a problem.

Sandoval's position is funny stuff, especially the day after we launch our new ad campaign touting Nevada's "independent spirit." "When other states restrict, we allow." I guess that's a reference to cathouses, not weed. Ah, the "dualities" of this state"

If I had a terminally ill disease, as medical MJ is designated for, I doubt I would be able to walk to the corner "dispensary" like it was a local liquor store.

Here in LA, we had none, then they popped up everywhere, then they reduced the number of them again.

Obtaining medical MJ is very simple. Answer the right questions and this "doctor" on the dispensary payroll will approve you for a user card.

So now you have your card and walk into a dispensary which is nothing more than a cover for a head shop.

Inside are various forms of MJ with various street names which do not sound like anything legally medical at all.

Ok. Where do you smoke it?

Legally, you're supposed to be able to smoke it anywhere. But now you have another issue, second hand smoke and the fact some MJ has a very pungent sometimes nauseating smell that drifts farther than cigarette smoke.

Most people who smoke it hide behind their medical right to smoke it citing medical reasons. In most cases there is a legal reason. However, the law trumps the right to smoke - be it cigarettes or MJ. There are nuisance laws which must be enforced.

Creating ways to obtain MJ will lead to more and more clogging of the court system of nuisance lawsuits from those who don't want to live smelling their neighbors business.

So that goes back to the first question. Where did patients obtain their MJ before?

It seemed to work, and was more controlled.

I am not against smoking MJ, or cigarettes for that matter, but I do have the right enjoy what clean air Los Angeles offerds me without feeling nauseous from the smell of MJ.

Legalizing MJ use will create more legal problems, and protect those wanting to smoke it "legally" with fraudulent medical excuses.

Leave it for those who really need it, the cancer patients and those with real ailments.

Legalizing both marijuana and same-sex marriage could be huge business opportunities for the state. When I was in AZ and CO, I was astounded by the sheer number of new small businesses related to marijuana that were popping up. So when conservatives/republicans (same thing) tell you they are for small business, just remember how often their ideas on what constitutes "proper" morals kills new business opportunities.

It should be argued that alcohol and marijuana be accorded equal legal status. The idea that alcohol should be 'grandfathered in' and pot banned is silly. Either substance produces at least a mildly altered state of mind, with alcohol seeming to have a greater potential for abuse. If the Governor would propose banning both substances, then at least he would be consistent.